PokeChampofPokeBeach
New Member
It's a long post, folks. You can ctrl+f to "Rocket Science" once you've read the post and want to avoid having to scour through the quote responses to find my opinions.
ProHawk asked:
1. Then we're pretty screwed anyway. Seers can't ever safely give info.
2. Then we'll see that in the update and we'll have to change from that.
Pf5 said:
This isn't a gambit or I wouldn't be relying on other people ie Omega, priests, townies without strong roles. There are literally dozens of safe plays to make now. This is a _better_ safe play.
If you want to think this through, do some thinking. I don't see any new ideas coming from you. And yes, we should be voting for a player for information if it's going to reshape the game.
Cantor said:
1. That's not an issue. That's an aid. If they decline to help they either have a strong role or are an independent (unless of course roleblocking Alpha cancels the night kill but I sincerely doubt that).
2. You've answered your own question there. My role is a 1-for-1; as long as I'm in play it's a risk for wolves to kill me.
3. Your last point isn't grounds for voting. Your others were.
Diaz outlandishly stated:
It's a seer with a pseudo-double seer. THIS IS BROKEN. It didn't work because Absol clearly has a heavy power role or is an independent. It didn't work on me because I have a 1-for-1.
Who cares if priests come with role-blocks? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, genius.
No, I refused to help a Seer because I will die pointlessly without my role.
READ THIS AGAIN, FOLKS.
Nice one, amateur! I was TARGETED by Omega. Let's see you flip me as Omega and I'll bring you a wagon and a band to play on it.
So after this storm of failure from Diaz, Pikamaster says:
Initially Cantor's reason for voting for (not voting off) Diaz was for information. That comment about veterans is Cantor's self-justification for voting. Whatever. That being said, good players don't make stupid comments like the one I just quoted.
ProHawk asked:
It's a strategy often called "Follow the Cop". Go look it up.
Pikamaster said:
If you want to see how to make discussion happen (and how to reaction pull wolves properly) go read my Day 1 play from last game. No lying, more discussion and less superficial junk.
King Piplup asserts that:
This is too protective of Diaz. "The ends justifies the means" is what you're saying. The difference here is that you're not Machiavelli and in Werewolf that mentality is not a town mentality.
Diaz says:
If anything that's a problem. We shouldn't be talking about how unique your play was - we should be talking about _current issues_. That you've branded yourself as a target for LaL is your own cross to bear.
Then later:
WIFOM harder please?
King Piplup said:
Now aren't we just fabulous!
jellyfisher remarks:
1. Yes, tunnelling is wolfy.
2. LaL is pretty much a rule up until Seers start revealing information. I'm not going to sit here and argue theory, though.
3. I want to see evidence.
4. Why not just vote for him...
TheKing has this gem:
And this is an extremely true point.
King Piplup again on the Ghetsis? issue:
Yay, a post that you can quote later on to confirm you've been saying you're not Ghetsis since Day 3 and trick some people into believing you. I don't even know.
TheKing AGAIN WITH MORE GEMS:
Hello? Why am I the only person paying attention to this guy? Another good point and yes, Diaz is WIFOM hardcore right now.
King Piplup with his own shovel again:
WIFOM to the first and I could care less what you think to the second.
PF5 said:
1. 1 in 7 is the way to look at it. Seriously folks. 1/7 to hit a wolf. Let's get real.
2. WIFOM. WIFOM. This vintage presented before me is fine indeed. I say, the grapes of the French were ever to my taste.
3. Let's sit on the fence some more. That's all we've heard from you. Possibilities. We need to think more. I'm not making a decision but we have more logical targets. Far out.
4. More beautiful wine in front of me! So explain to me how you know that his potential fellow wolves aren't just telling him to keep playing like he has so far because it gives him this apparent "Village Idiot Immunity"?
ProHawk says:
Just quoted for truth.
Diaz says weirdly:
DON'T WORRY BRO, I GOT YO' BACK. Buddy-buddy more.
DragonClyne says:
You haven't even taken the possibility that he's wrong into account in your further writing.
Diaz said:
Textual evidence for this or you're scumslipping.
Absoltrainer responds:
How do you know?
PCPB's attempted debate:
There were a straw man and ad hom call in Pika's post. So...no.
My apologies. I went back to Pikamaster's post and I indeed found misrepresentation of Cantor's argument and attacks of Cantor rather than Cantor's argument. I'm not sure how I missed this the first time, I will maintain that you are correct on this point. I take back every negative thing I've said about Cantor, in that case.
Initially it was just a pressure play. That doesn't need evidence. The fact that Diaz isn't being coherent anymore is more of a lead than anyone else has.
Okay, look. You tell me that you know the Priest also roleblocks. This concept is pretty foreign to me and just takes away much of the validity of even having a Priest in such a large game - any role worth having is made into a vanilla townie once they get Priested. Even if Omega is roleblocked by the priest, we learn something about the priest's role. Information is key. HOWEVER you don't know if the priest roleblocks or not. We need to experiment.
As King Piplup has already stated, in 'Gym games every priest role-blocks. This is an experiment that could go horribly wrong: Omega will be continually protected by the priest to protect his role, meaning that two roles will be wasted each night, as the priest can protect no-one else and Omega can no longer accrue information. That invalidates having a priest more than anything to me. Which is why I came to the conclusion the play on Diaz is not worth it.
Oh look, arguments...completely based on subjective flavour text. MOVING ON.
Indeed it is. But it is very specifically worded flavor text.
Dragonclyne - That's new. So by playing well you don't get lynched? Maybe the wolves should do this!
PMysterious - He very well could be Ghetsis, but you're not sure if he is or isn't. Right. Why say anything?
Scottistru - He very well could be Ghetsis and you suspect him slightly more than PM solely because you've played with him before and he's not playing the same. That's not a basis at all.
Jellyfisher - You agree with him so he's not Ghetsis. That's not even remotely credible.
Son_of_Apollo - No comment needed.
Redados1 - He's laying low and voted for SS7 AHA! Conclusive evidence! No. Also you essentially say that you only justify your comments because you can compare his play to other games. That's not how it works.
King Piplup - Same thing as DragonClyne. He's playing well, so he's town according to you. Drat, if all the wolves played well we'd never be able to find them!
And your reason for voting Redados1 can be translated to Jason. Whoop de freaking doo.
That seems to be a bit of strawman yourself. I think you are completely misrepresenting some of my arguments. On the point of Dragonclyne, you are completely patronizing me. This is beyond ridiculously insulting to my intelligence, not to mention I feel like you are deliberately taking what I said and putting it out of context. I never said anything to the extent of Dragonclyne not being a wolf just because he plays well, I was merely expressing that there was no basis to vote for him because his play has not been suspicious so far. He could be a wolf, at this moment there is no way of proving that. I don't see why you choose to attack this point, you yourself don't want Dragonclyne to reveal despite the fact he contradicted himself, you attacked me repeatedly on that point. So why attack me on this? It seems as if you are deliberately belittling a player because you can and I ask you, what does this do for anyone? It's not helping to find wolves. I really wish you would drop your attitude of superiority to everyone, just because I can't play the game as well as you can and can't express myself as well as you can doesn't mean I deserve to be humiliated like this. Why say anything about Scottistru? Because I'm trying to find who is most likely to be a wolf. What are you doing towards this? You STILL want to go through with a play that no one cares about because it will do nothing but damage the advantage we've already accrued so far. So again I ask why this attack on me is warranted. I'm not saying that Jellyfisher isn't Ghetsis, again you are misrepresenting my arguments. Is this the only way you can debate with me? You may supposedly be the better player, but I'm not blowing up people's arguments so I can attack them easier. That is complete strawman debate. I was stating, like with Dragonclyne, that there is no basis to vote for him. Not that he isn't a wolf, just that there is no credible attack to be made against him at the moment. And that is it. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with him or not. Please stop misrepresenting my arguments. On the point of Redados1, he has not been contributing at all to the game. He's like a clone of PMysterious, except PMysterious is new to the game and he is not. I don't think I need to spell out for you who looks worse. I won't even bother with King Piplup, my argument for the first two misrepresentations of my argument are still valid.
Son_of_Apollo says:
Or it's just flavour text?
Nice to know that you don't know.
And Diaz back again with the transparent ideas!
You removed yourself from the list with a WIFOM argument and then you think you can order other people around? Why not start with your character's name and then Omega's name?
This being said, in the situation that you're an independent _OF COURSE_ you want to know who to frisk. You made the comment earlier about keeping your cards close - explain why others have to play theirs when they're in the same if not a better situation than you.
Furthermore, any claim can be made and because of the ambiguity of this type of game it's easy to create a fake claim. You can't counter these claims easily and at this stage not at all.
PCPB with this:
So how are we getting two wolves again?
Sorry if I didn't make this clear enough, we've already killed SS7 so if we lynch a wolf today, two will have died within the three game days. I didn't mean to say that there are two wolves among the seven (which there may or may not be).
Son_of_Apollo responds:
PANIC BUTTON!!! THREAT OF BEING VOTED. BETTER ROLE CLAIM. ABORT ABORT!!!
This is not a believable claim in any way.
ultimatedra brings the logic back:
Where have you been all this time?! Finally someone who knows what they're doing amidst the storm.
PCPB:
This is so scary. I mean seriously. Psycho ain't got nothin' on this hardcore play right here. Better threaten to do nothing in order to get results.
Again with the patronization. I don't need to be patronized to realize I've committed an error. I really despise your air of superiority, I don't know if that's just how you play, but I really don't like it. Please stop. It's a game, you're not making this fun for anyone. That is the purpose of a game, is it not?
DragonClyne said:
Nice contradiction there, bro. I like your claim. Bro.
Yet you don't want to see him name-claim, despite the contradiction?
TheKing:
Yes. Although that being said we still can't confirm PCPB's role.
I appear in the night update and if my purpose in the game is not fairly obvious to you I encourage you to read the night update again. My role is fairly obvious.
PCPB, please stop doing this:
Reality check, your vote is worth nothing in the grand scheme of things since your arguments aren't really compelling anyone to vote with you. So stop pretending you're actually doing anything, because you're not.
My vote is worth nothing, then why did Son of Apollo crack so easily? Just because you're a veteran doesn't give you the RIGHT to speak to me in this manner. I'm a logical human being, I make mistakes sometimes but so does everyone else. Again, I feel your air of superiority is questionable. Not in the sense of the game, but the fact that you come here to play a game and try to make yourself feel better than everyone else. I won't be shut up. I will continue making arguments even if they annoy you and Jewelquest. You're just going to have to deal with your annoyance, because I won't be told by you that I can't play the game. That is more than unreasonable. Anyone can play the game and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. My arguments do promote discussion, I just got someone to make a name-claim. People are discussing whether it's legitimate or not. What have you done Napoleon? I don't exactly see a list of accomplishments. Your goal is to what? Expose one of our most powerful if not the most powerful town role, to do what? Bind him down with the Priest's role-block every-night. Your ideas are so much better than mine, dude. Like, you've played so many games your ideas are always good no matter what. You're a veteran, your arguments automatically make sense bro. :thumb:
PMysterious comes out with:
That doesn't legitimise your claim at all. And then you just go along and repeat what everyone else has said and then bandwagon, throwing on a few numbers and a side of "Wake up, inactives!" to make your post seem new and interesting. It's not.
PCPB says:
No it's not. Stop being a VI.
Tell me, why does anyone need to randomly assert they are a townie under no pressure? Why do this? That isn't in the slightest bit suspicious to you? Because that is basically what claiming to be a GL is doing. Shout-out to Jewelquest, I believe you made a similar attack against me. So this point I also ask you. Do any of you not find that in the slightest bit suspicious? If you don't, I'll drop it. Let me know.
Diaz:
This would make sense in any other situation. Let's assume for a minute that your logic in trying to dissect flavour text is right - which it's not, but I'll humour you. All you need are GL claims and then you can go on to separating those out. You don't need full claims from the get-go.
JewelQuest bringing back the logic:
Agreed.
Pretty much.
TheKing:
QFT.
Diaz, oh Diaz!:
It's wolf hunting season! With my 1/6 chance of hitting them (THAT'S RIGHT, WE'VE IMPROVED TO 1/6!!!!) we're sure to put a few bullets where they'll count!
Son_of_Apollo said:
WIFOM. Not true at all. Your futher logic in your post is also based on sand.
thunderjolt said:
Well isn't this just a clutch vote in a time of need?
Cantor said:
Yeah. We're using the wrong ones.
Pikamaster made some points about debating. Let's get this straight, you ad hom'd like a champion and you pretty much popped a straw man but nobody cares anymore and it's not an important detail. So let's move on.
And ProHawk rounds it up by putting pressure on Redados for minimal posting which isn't really a scumtell and illogical voting which is subject to opinion.
So approximately 4,600 words later, where are we? Rocket science, that's where!
In regards to Omega:-
Any half-decent player can use the Omega role to find out about two people at the same time. Let's break this down:
Omega targets a player (A).
That player (A) can choose to aid Omega in Seering another player (B).
If (A) refuses, (B) does not get Seered.
If (A) accepts, (B) gets seered for some information which is given to both players.
Omega at all times knows who player (A) is, although player (A) does not ever know who Omega is.
Omega and player (A) both know who player (B) is.
At no time do either Omega or player (A) learn about each other's roles directly.
Essentially there are two situations; player (A) accepts or player (A) does not accept.
If player (A) accepts these are the results:
-Player (A) is a townie with a role which they believe is less important than Seering, or is an independent, and both Omega and (A) get information on (B).
-Player (A) is a wolf seeking to gain free information on Player (B)
If player (A) declines these are the results:
-Omega knows that player (A) has a role which is more substantial than Seering - specifically seering, priesting or 1-for-1 roles.
-Player (A) is an independent with a strong role.
-Essentially, Player (A) is someone with a very powerful role.
Special situations:
-Player (A) and (B) are wolves.
This is fun.
Either player (A) declines and keeps their partner safe or they accept and gambit giving out a wolf in the hope that they can hold out a persona for a long time.
-Player (A) is a wolf and declines even though Player (B) is not a wolf.
This is complex and hard to figure out but balances itself out. The wolves do not get a rare snippet of info but are forced to pretend they have a heavy power role. Results will need to be seen and it's nigh upon impossible to keep a heavy power role claim out without results.
This is where it gets interesting and where the brokenness of Omega begins. Omega has to use their deductive reasoning to decide who they want to reveal they targeted and when to reveal. This is particularly important when it comes to discussing who did not agree to help him investigation.
Of course, if A/AM releases that information in the update that takes a lot of stress off of Omega.
Say later on Omega has already investigated someone. Let's assume for a minute that he can investigate someone twice - pick a new person to help with the investigation. Omega might be able to learn something about the recruited person. The possibilities are endless with a role so vast!
It goes without saying that this is a role which has to co-ordinate with the town! But it's not as simple as Omega coming out and revealing.
Diaz should be forced to say Omega's name because he's simply not a reliable narrator as of this point in time. If he can name Omega correctly and Omega confirms this, we can at least have more security.
In regards to this whole "one from seven" thing:-
One in seven is not good odds for random firing at wolves. However, from an independent perspective, if you ctrl+f "King Piplup" through my post it should become evident why I say now that he leans scum more than any other player.
That being said Diaz leans scum pretty hard too, for inconsistencies and LaL, among other things. Not to mention he should be getting spotlighted hard right now because of what he can tell us and what he's been doing before.
This is a safer and better play to be making than a gambit which relies on a lot of luck. Hence why I'm still voting for Diaz.
That being said, considering the amount I've bashed some people in this post I'm not surprised if few people join this little crusade.
Also if I see any "Great post Napoleon, wow that was long, I agree with you completely /vote" then I will be disappointed.
Shout out to my boys in the freeze locker, if it weren't for your revival bumps this would be much less interesting! :lol:
Responses in bold.
